Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov)

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 12:35:02 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Pelton

Again why do you people insist on fighting MT in the south.



I miscalculated and price I paid crippled my forces.


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 91
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 12:43:44 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline 		Hells bells

Will they actually change enough in 2.0 to make it playable?

_____________________________


(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 92
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 12:46:51 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T2 north & south (Soviet)


Withdrawal to temporary defensive position.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 93
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 12:50:02 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T2 south (Soviet)


Destruction of southern mega-pocket is postponed by 1 turn. In the meantime I created pathetic defensive line on Dnepr.








Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 94
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 1:10:21 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T3 north & centre (German)

Steady German advance.

I am getting concerned by spearhead heading towards Bryanks. My lines are paper thin and once Bryansk is captured I will face threat of massive encirclement.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 95
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 1:12:45 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T3 south (German)


I will have to make decision here - risk more troops by defending Dnepr line or run away and jeopardise industry evacuation.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 96
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 4:22:59 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

"Why do people insist on fighting" -- remember that the Saper variant of the Lvov opening sees the entire of SW front encircled before it activates. It's a bit hard to run or rail out units that have zero movement points.

"And this is why the Soviets run, run, run away nowadays." -- and yet several people want to put additional restrictions stopping the Soviets from running in the first summer. We've already seen what happens when they don't run.


Quoted for truth.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 97
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:14:17 PM   
smokindave34


Posts: 877
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline 		I'm impressed with both Michael T and Sapper's ability to get everything they can out of the logistics system and to come up with new and improved Turn 1 openings. With that said this is essentially an "I win" button for the axis......not sure how the Soviets make it past 41 after this. A lot of people are missing out on some great gameplay in '43-45 (for both sides).

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 98
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:26:55 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline 		Wow, this looks really scary now. This type of opening is really most "victory efficient". Though this seems a bit unsound to have a rule holding the Rumanians and the 17th Army in the south fixed (for good historical reasoning), but then rail a Panzerkorps all the way there and start an aggression from Rumanian territory that its government denied. If so, then this would fit much better to an alternate campaign with no fixing and MP limits in place.

I don't think you can hold the Djenpr now, it can hardly be held nowadays with limited fort-building capabilities if the Axis arrives later and the Soviet is in better order. I guess I'd try to set up speed-bumps and get out what I can, and otherwise hold AGN and perhaps AGC back -- though after these losses, I don't spontaneously see what forces to commit really. Yet if, just if, you can force Michael to go into blizzard with a very unusually stretched flank and front line from somewhere S/W of LG, hopefully W of Moscow and whatever depth beyond Rostov/Stalingrad/Kharkov/Voroshilovgrad/Tula he may achieve, this may come haunting him? Perhaps.


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel
If you compare what really happened in the summer of 1941 vs what actually happens in 1941 in most PBEM games, then you'll find that the real Soviet losses in 1941 were actually much higher than those suffered by most players. In turn, the actual Soviet replacements and reinforcements were actually much higher than the game provides. I don't believe that the VP system needs fixing to solve this, but it is a fundamental change that needs making. Hear my argument for a moment if you will:
...


Good arguments, and sound. The recruitment and production of course resulted from necessity as much as from possibility, but quite certainly Stalin hadn't kept recruiting if losses had been way lower in territory, men and material. Or probably would have even increased the paces (and the Allies their Lend and Lease) if it had been worse. It is the same with the Axis withdrawals, ToE changes and so on.
These causalities is completely missing in game, and this could be the lever to keep the balance in a GC under control such that it is playable at least into 44 with good chances for both sides for in most games, i.e. just not those that are ruined by poor tactics or only the worst of luck. It could limit the growth (rate) of the Soviets if they survived better by a cap (a function of date perhaps, enable it to grow beyond only slowly), as well as it could prevent German unit withdrawals in times of need, or ToE changes in times of surplusses etc. Hopefully they will implement that in WitE2, else it will run into the same "extreme games" that we sometimes see here. Else only two players playing quite historically can retain some "suspense of disbelief".



(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 99
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:36:43 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T3 north (Soviet)


I hope diversions on flanks will slow Germans down and buy me enough time to create defensive line along swamps and rivers.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 100
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:40:07 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T3 centre (Soviet)


Just trying to avoid encirclement until reinforcements arrive.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 101
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 5:43:02 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T3 south (Soviet)


I fear crazy withdrawal is my only option now.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 102
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 7:28:33 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 north (German)


Contrary to other areas situation here is under control.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 103
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 7:30:20 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 centre (German)

Bryansk has fallen so my position is badly outflanked.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 104
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 7:32:23 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 south (German)

For some obscure reasons I received reinforced behind enemy lines (yellow arrows).






Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 105
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 8:22:59 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 north (Soviet)


Lines look ok here






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kamil -- 5/27/2013 8:28:02 PM >

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 106
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 8:24:34 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 centre (Soviet)


Terrible. Turn 4th and my defensive lines are already by Kaluga.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 107
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/27/2013 8:28:54 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T4 south (Soviet)


My industry in extremely vulnerable now.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 108
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 2:42:16 AM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline 		You should be using a checker board in south and not lines. Line are so easy to pocket in south.

You could take the troops you have in south and do a 3 deep checker board.Sure he pocket a few but nothing uber. Lines are a sitting duck from Oka south.




That's MT's check board in south.

You cant just run, you have to check board south.

Stay 4 hexes off the closed axis hex then units every 4th hex. Every other hex and close lines as you get more units.

Turn 4 he is way way past fuel supplies. Unless hes got another exploit hes out of fuel for a while.

HOLD Moscow and simply keep with drawing in south.

You can lose 80 armament points and it will not hurt you from October 42-45.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 5/28/2013 2:47:35 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 109
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 2:23:33 PM   
hugh04

 

Posts: 165
Joined: 9/14/2011
Status: offline 		What a massive run by the reds. I wonder how turns 10-14 will like.

vandev

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 110
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 3:41:13 PM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Pelton

That's MT's check board in south.

You cant just run, you have to check board south.

Stay 4 hexes off the closed axis hex then units every 4th hex. Every other hex and close lines as you get more units.

Turn 4 he is way way past fuel supplies. Unless hes got another exploit hes out of fuel for a while.

HOLD Moscow and simply keep with drawing in south.

You can lose 80 armament points and it will not hurt you from October 42-45.




Count his units and count my and you will know why I run away.

Lack of depth supplemented by highly mobile German motorised divisions make any stand in the south impossible.

I pay the price for turn 1 disaster.


(in reply to hugh04)
Post #: 111
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 4:13:49 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Pelton, Kamil flat out doesn't have the units to pull off that kind of in depth checkerboard at present. He's not going to be able to stabilize until he gets more units. That's going to take another 2-3 turns, minimum.

All 4 border Fronts getting wiped out initially puts the Red Army in a deep, deep hole. A deeply silly hole.

Why do people even want to play this kind of game, anymore? It bears no resemblance to reality. Just say no, imo.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 112
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 5:38:00 PM   
Balou


Posts: 841
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline 		"This type of game":

1) As in the present AAR ?
or
2) WitE as it is today ?


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 113
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 7:28:49 PM   
juret

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 10/17/2011
Status: offline 		subscriped

(in reply to Balou)
Post #: 114
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 8:28:24 PM   
Saper2229


Posts: 186
Joined: 3/9/2011
From: Russia
Status: offline 		Russian can fight after T1, not flee to Moscow. I lost many divisions in the pockets (one - more than 320 divisions to 12/1/41), but destroy Germany forces in blizzard always and win all games in 1942.

(in reply to juret)
Post #: 115
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/28/2013 9:52:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Balou

"This type of game":

1) As in the present AAR ?
or
2) WitE as it is today ?




Not the present AAR. I'm talking about the entire 1941 dynamic. It's boring and ahistorical.

The entire PBEM flow in 1941 has become hackneyed at this point, it's just north Africa writ large, it doesn't resemble the eastern front at all. It's become entirely about how much you can leverage the suprise turn, and then how well the Soviet can evade the effects of that until mud. There's no hard fighting in the middle. The south in particular never develops as it should.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 5/28/2013 9:55:25 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Balou)
Post #: 116
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/29/2013 3:53:53 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2227
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline 		My current game against Bigbaba is seeing a great fight in the south. I did a big thrust towards Proskurov(sp) but instead of diving south for the huge pocket I surprised him and headed towards Kiev and Overran it on turn 2. I figured he would run at this point but he has stood toe to toe with me. Its the end of turn 7 and I am finally over the damn river in 3 places. Its been a real hoot fighting like this but my concern is its turn 7 and there are only 1.5 million Soviet casualties because I did not pocket the whole lot.

We will see.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 117
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/29/2013 5:55:51 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Not the present AAR. I'm talking about the entire 1941 dynamic. It's boring and ahistorical.

The entire PBEM flow in 1941 has become hackneyed at this point, it's just north Africa writ large, it doesn't resemble the eastern front at all. It's become entirely about how much you can leverage the suprise turn, and then how well the Soviet can evade the effects of that until mud. There's no hard fighting in the middle. The south in particular never develops as it should.


That's why I abandoned this game long ago (along with the constant and ongoing discovery of game-changing bugs, tweaks, "design-features", whatever).

I still read this forum for kicks but honestly I have little hope that they'll get it right in WitE 2.0 either, not for lack of trying but because the opening campaign and then the swing in fortunes in 1942 seems to be incredibly difficult to model properly, since they hinged on various massive blunders by both sides that cannot be expected to be seen in a game.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 118
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/29/2013 9:24:15 AM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T5 north (German)


Germans crossed river in the place that suits me most.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 119
RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) - 5/29/2013 9:27:38 AM   
KamilS

 

Posts: 1827
Joined: 2/5/2011
Status: offline 		T5 centre (German)

Unfortunately enemy is almost at Moscow and Tula gates, so I will have to stand and fight soon, and I do not have means to do it.

Very bad.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to KamilS)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Micheal T (Ger) vs Kamil (Sov) Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.859